In the spring of 1998, the Missouri General
Assembly passed a bill authorizing a referendum for a concealed
weapon permit system. This bill culminates seven (7) years of
attempts to pass such a bill. A number of parties object to the
bill because it is a permit system for an act, which should be a
right. The chance of passing a bill for "Vermont Carry"
(there is no law against concealed carry in Vermont) may be seen
by it taking seven years to pass even a referendum for a permit
system.

The Missouri House has voted three to one for
concealed carry every time it has been presented. The Senate has
been less sympathetic. The major obstacle, has been the governor,
who has presented every possible obstacle to passing a bill, even
to promising the same prison to three different senators if they
voted against it (and they did). There is little possibility of a
political change in the Senate. The governor cannot run for
office again, however, the likely candidates for governor are
equally hostile.

The major dispute over the bill as passed, was
the requirement for a referendum. The bill will become law
without the governor's signature if it passes a popular vote on
"the Tuesday next following the first Monday in April"
1999 (6 April, 1999). To induce the legislature to attach a
referendum provision to the bill, Governor Carnahan promised to
remain neutral during the referendum campaign. The original
referendum ballot language passed by the legislature stated:

Shall state or local law enforcement
agencies be authorized to issue permits to law-abiding
citizens at least twenty-one years of age to carry concealed
firearms outside their home for personal protection after
having passed a state and federal criminal background check
and having completed a firearms safety training course
approved by the Missouri Department of Public Safety?

Some nine months after the legislature passed
the above ballot language, Governor Carnahan sponsored a poll on
the referendum. This poll found that 60% of the voters would vote
for the above ballot language, without knowing anything else
about the bill. The governor took these results to the
chairperson of the opposition group, who happened to be his
daughter. Two of the governors advisors serve as
strategists for her organization, and the governors
personal attorney filed a lawsuit against the legislatures
ballot language.

The basis of the lawsuit was the Missouri
statute on referendums. This statute required the Secretary of
State to write the ballot language, the Auditor to write a fiscal
note, and the Attorney General to review the whole. The ballot
language could not exceed fifty (50) words. The legislature
thought it had the right to specify the ballot language, and had
sent the measure through its own fiscal committee. Its language
was, however, seven (7) words too long.

The Secretary of State had been appointed to
the vacant position by the Governor. The Auditor had, while a
county prosecutor, pledged to use all the resources of her office
to defeat the referendum. The Attorney General had been opposed
by all Missouri firearms groups in a recent campaign for the U.
S. Senate. The language created by the Secretary of State was:

Shall Sheriffs, or in the case of St.
Louis County, the chief of police, be Required to issue
permits to carry concealed firearms to citizens who apply if
various statutory requirements are satisfied.

The fiscal note reads:

Because of the discretion given to
local law enforcement to verify the Accuracy of applications,
the costs are uncertain. Applications fees are Estimated to
cover most costs for the first three years. Subsequently,
local Governments, as a whole, may incur costs from $500,000
to $1,000,000 annually, not covered by fees.

This fiscal note is directly contrary to the
findings of the legislature. According to the Auditor, a fiscal
note concocted by the opposition group, Committee for Safe
Schools and Workplaces, was added to the costs reported by the
state of Oregon to administer their permit system. The opposition
committee developed its fiscal note by speculating that new
computers would have to be bought, buildings constructed to house
the computers, and new staff hired to man the computers. Why
Oregon was consulted is not explained.

Even with these fanciful costs, the fiscal not
found that fees would cover costs for the first three years. It
found extra costs for renewals because the renewal costs were
lower than the initial fee, and assuming that the costs of
renewal would be the same as for the initial permit. This
assumption is not just incorrect, it is completely wrong.
Renewals do not require the fingerprints, or the extensive
background check of the initial permit, with the related costs.

The Missouri Legislative Issues Council (MoLIC)
is an association of the grass roots gun rights groups in
Missouri. It has been the force behind CCW reform throughout the
history of the effort. MoLIC opposed the referendum on principle.
The view of WMSA, and MoLIC, was that it was wrong to submit a
fundamental right to a popular vote. The National Rifle
Association adopted the idea as the only way to pass a bill, and
in the belief a referendum could be won. Given these
circumstances, MoLIC decided that, as a matter of political
reality, the best course of action was to work for the bill, in
order to prevent the addition of further odious amendments.

The Western Missouri Shooters Alliance (WMSA),
the oldest grass roots group in Missouri, took a different view
and voted to kill the bill rather than accept a referendum. By
leaving MoLIC and fighting the bill, WMSA discouraged the
addition of other objectionable amendments to the bill. The
impression in the legislature was that support for the bill was
lost over the referendum issue, and further amendments would
cause further erosion of support. As both pro and anti-gun rights
legislators wanted the bill to pass, each side believing the
referendum would go their way, no other amendments were pressed
on the bill.

Many people remain opposed to the bill because
of the referendum. That battle is over. There is going to be a
referendum, the only question is if it will be won or lost.

The bill repeals, then re-enacts great portions
of law, this is the way bills are written in Missouri. The trick
lies in what is left out and what is added when the sections are
re-enacted. The first significant addition is section
571.030.1(10) which re-enacts the ban on carrying a concealed
weapon with an exception if one has a permit to carry a concealed
firearm issued by Missouri or another state or political
subdivision of another state. Such reciprocity is common among
CCW reform bills of the past ten years. There are forty-two (42)
states with permit systems as or more restrictive than
Missouri's. Vermont, usually counted as the forty-third state
offering a CCW system, has no law against carrying concealed
weapons, and therefore no permit system. In order to obtain
reciprocity a state's permit requirements must be determined by
the Department of Public Safety to have substantially the same
requirements as the Missouri law. Typically, the other state must
also offer the same right to Missouri permit holders. The
Department of Public Safety will not begin evaluating other
requirements of other states until after the bill passes the
referendum.

At 571.030.2(1) all peace officers are exempted
from the law regarding concealed weapons, even if off duty or out
of their jurisdiction. This re-enforces an Attorney General
Opinion regarding existing law, which sounds official, but is
only a lawyer's opinion according to the Missouri Supreme Court.
There is an unconfirmed report of a Gladstone Police sergeant,
arrested and convicted in St. Louis for concealed carry.

The use of the term "peace officers"
replaces the previous "law enforcement" officers. There
is some reason to believe that the term "peace
officers" is a broader term.

An area of some dispute in the bill is
571.070.1(3), which prohibits the possession of a
"concealable firearm" (they mean handgun) if the
individual was "adjudicated" in the juvenile courts for
a dangerous felony or murder in the first degree, but only if a
"concealable firearm" (they mean handgun) was used in
the crime. Under 556.061 "Dangerous felony" is defined
as arson in the first degree, assault in the first degree,
forcible rape, forcible sodomy, kidnapping, murder in the second
degree and robbery in the first degree. Under existing law,
robbery in the first degree requires serious physical injury to
any person during the commission of the crime (RSMo 569.020).

This provision applies even if the crime was
committed before the date of the referendum. This penalty is
probably not an ex-post facto law or double jeopardy. It
increases disabilities for a status rather than create a new
crime. The intrusion into juvenile records is unprecedented in
Missouri, but part of a nationwide trend. The concern over the
above section is that it will disarm persons with no adult
record. However, such juveniles are not good candidates for gun
ownership. As a matter of reality, juveniles who commit such
crimes are typically charged as adults. Persons who commit the
listed crimes as juveniles, but not as adults, form a very small
circle indeed. There may be no one who fits this category. There
was a rumor that a Kansas City area gun shop owner had a juvenile
record. On investigation, it was found that he was 23 at the time
of the offense, which was expunged under the federal Youth
Offender Act. There is a means to expunge juvenile records at the
state level.

The juvenile records provision as been part of
every CCW reform bill submitted to the legislature since at least
1995. It has not been a matter in issue until now.

The meat of the CCW reform is 571.093. This
section of the bill requires a permit to carry a concealed
"firearm" to be issued by the sheriff of the
jurisdiction where the applicant "resides".

This is a "shall issue" bill. If
certain listed, objective, criteria are met, the sheriff must
issue a permit.

The permit applies to any firearm. The bill
does not require registration or listing of specific guns to be
carried under the permit. The paragraph limits the permit to
firearms. Previously, legislators had expressed concern over
citizens carrying concealed switchblades. The mere possession of
switchblades has long been restricted, however the legislature
valiantly labors to protect us from possessing these knives.

Issue by the sheriff of the county where the
applicant resides, instead of his place of domicile, is unusual.
Under existing law, one may have many residences, but only one
domicile. One may reside anywhere, but a domicile is considered a
primary residence for voting purposes. Authorizing application
where one resides provides some flexibility to applicants.

Permits are to be issued to persons who are
currently legally qualified to own handguns, plus certain
specific provisions. The base criteria are that the applicant
have no criminal or psychiatric record. This provision only
applies to "adjudicated" psychiatric histories. For an
adjudicated history, a person must be found incompetent by a
court, usually the probate court. This is a matter of public
record. The bill does not require breach of doctor-patient
confidentiality.

The applicant must not have, within the past
five years, exhibited violent behavior toward another person,
except in self-defense, or offered a credible threat of violence.
The applicant must have demonstrated a knowledge of handgun
safety by submitting proof of completion of a twelve (12) hour
course approved by the Department of Public Safety. There is no
specific provision as to what this course must cover. The course
must be taught by law enforcement or NRA certified instructors.
As the NRA instructors are specifically mentioned, the NRA
personal protection course may be considered a strong contender
for course approval. Dares International Inc, of Columbia
Missouri has submitted a syllabus of a personal protection course
it offers. This may provide a basis for other courses, however
the evaluation will not be done until the referendum passes.
There is no provision for issue without taking a training course.
The first course of action will be for the persons who give these
courses, to give them to each other.

Any "competent" person, aged
twenty-one or older, may file an affidavit alleging that a permit
holder has ceased to qualify for his or her permit. The Small
Claims Court shall hold a hearing on such an affidavit, and may
revoke permits in appropriate cases. The court may award
"reasonable" attorney fees to the prevailing party in
the hearing. There will be abuses of this provision. A
"reasonable" attorney fee to defend against a false or
abusive affidavit would be about a half-million dollars, an hour.

Concealed carry permits will be valid for three
(3) years, and cost eighty ($80) dollars. Permit renewals shall
cost thirty-five ($35) dollars. The issuing sheriff can revoke or
suspend any permit if the holder is no longer qualified to be
issued a permit. The permit will be issued within forty-five (45)
days, unless the criminal records check has not been returned.
The sheriff is required to submit a request for this report
within seven (7) days of the application.

A set of fingerprints is required with the
permit application to prevent issuance on false identification.
These fingerprints will be used to conduct the background check.
There is no provision to purge these fingerprints following the
investigation. There is some objection to the fingerprint
requirement, as well as the permit system itself, in that it
creates a government "list". Regardless of the
principle, fingerprints are a common requirement for recent
permit systems. The bill is not likely to pass the referendum
without it. Anyone who has purchased a box of ammunition with a
credit card, subscribed to a firearms magazine, or purchased a
firearm since 1968 is already on a "list". Anyone who
has received a firearms-related solicitation or outdoors
catalogue has evidence of that "list".

If the application is denied, the applicant is
entitled to file suit in the Small Claims Court to prove his or
her qualification for a permit. The suit form under 571.093.13
refers to a permit to carry "a concealed firearms with a
barrel of less than sixteen inches". This not only limits
permits to guns, but to handguns. The provision conflicts with
the section authorizing permits to carry concealed firearms in
general and will require clarification in the next legislature.

At 571.094, all businesses, citizens, not for
profit or public entities are authorized to post their property
to deny access to persons with concealed weapons. As a matter of
principle, a person or entity may do with its property as it sees
fit. Such a measure probably makes the business responsible for
the security of persons on the premises. Experience with other
states, which have such provisions, is that gun owners avoid such
businesses, and armed robbers do not. Posting has consequently
become less popular. Unfortunately the provision fails to exempt
peace officers.

If the bill passes the referendum, concealed
weapons will not be allowed in any church, school, election
precincts on Election Day, a government office or in a building
exclusively used by any government agency. Weapons are already
prohibited in such areas. The bill deletes the current legal
prohibition of weapons (concealed or otherwise) into "any
public assemblage of persons met for any lawful purpose".
The term "public assemblage" was never defined, which
allowed for a small number of arbitrary arrests in public places.

After the bill is enacted, no city or county
can ban carry by permit holders. Missouri's Uniform Law (RSMo
21.750) prevents local laws from being more restrictive than
state law. The bill itself does not affect the legality of open
carry, however, under the Uniform Law, local government can
restrict open carry.

The bill has been criticized as being less than
perfect. It is less than perfect, born of an imperfect system.
Ross Perot tells a story about Henry Ford and the perfect
hamburger. The Chairman of Ford Motors said the only good
hamburgers could be had at the executive dinning room. On
investigation it was found that the chef made hamburgers by
grinding up a Grade A steak. Given a world-class chef and Grade A
steak, the perfect hamburger was possible. Missouri shooters did
not have these assets working for them in the legislature. The
bill is not perfect, and was never expected to be perfect. One
sees perfect bills enacted almost as often as unicorns.

Missouri shooters lost their right to carry
concealed weapons in three bills from 1874 to 1879. This was a
period when the legislature and governor were solidly united,
largely in an effort to repeal reconstruction. Missourians will
not get their rights back in a single bill.

The bill has defects, but nothing that cannot
be fixed. It is the cleanest, most gun-owner friendly bill we
have seen in seven years of attempts. Even if the bill was
seriously flawed, it would be necessary to support it. The
results of the referendum will resonate over Missouri's future,
and the gun rights of the nation. Regardless of the outcome,
whenever gun rights come up, the comment will be that "the
people have spoken".

It has been suggested that the movement could
survive loosing the referendum because term limits are likely to
give us a Republican-dominated legislature. It is assumed that a
Republican-dominated legislature will be more likely to go
against the will of a Democratic governor. Term limits will also
loose us the presence of long-time pro-gun Democrats. We do not
know what we will get in their place. A new legislator is
cautious and not likely to vote for CCW reform if the voters have
just rejected it. With some few exceptions, legislators do not
vote according to principles. They vote according to power, who
has it, and how the legislator can keep it. If a new legislature
does vote for CCW reform, there is no way to predict what such a
bill would look like. Based on past experience, it is not likely
to look as good as the current bill.

If we lose the referendum, the politicians will
believe that our movement is weak, they will throw their support
to the prohibitionists and begin to take away rights we have now.
We will never see concealed carry in our lifetimes, and other
states will suffer a near fatal setback.

If we win, we get to say, "The people have
spoken". We will demonstrate the political power we need to
improve and correct the bill. Other states have gradually
improved bills with worse defects. This bill is part of a process
to restore our rights, it is not the end. Standing together is
part of that process.